Health related quality of life in Japanese men after radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Department of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
International Journal of Urology (Impact Factor: 1.8). 09/2004; 11(8):619-27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2004.00860.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We performed a retrospective survey of general and disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (XRT) in Japanese men.
A total of 186 patients underwent RP and 78 underwent XRT for clinically localized prostate cancer between 2000 and 2002. We measured the general and disease specific HRQOL with the MOS 36-Item Health Survey and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, respectively. Each treatment group was further divided into four subgroups according to the time scale.
Patients from the RP group were significantly younger than those from the XRT group. The tumor characteristics differed significantly in their distributions among the treatment groups. Patients undergoing XRT had low scores in most of the general measures of HRQOL just after treatment, but after 6 months there were no differences between the treatment groups, except for the physical domains. The RP group was associated with worse urinary function, whereas the XRT group had worse bowel function and bother during the first 6 months after treatment. Thereafter, however, urinary and bowel domain did not differ between the groups. Both groups reported poor sexual function, although the RP group scored lower sexual bother.
The patients who underwent RP had significantly worse urinary and better bowel function than those treated with XRT. Both treatment groups had decrements in sexual function throughout the post-treatment period; careful attention should be paid to this side-effect in preoperative counselling, especially in younger patients, regardless of the primary treatments.


Available from: Shunichi Namiki, Mar 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess 3-year health-related quality of life of patients treated with carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer. A total of 213 patients received carbon-ion radiotherapy at a total dose of 66 Gy equivalent in 20 fractions over 5 weeks, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy were administered for high-risk patients for at least 12 months. A health-related quality of life assessment was carried out at four time-points (immediately before the initiation of carbon-ion radiotherapy, immediately after, 12 and 36 months after completion of carbon-ion radiotherapy) using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and for Prostate Cancer Patients. The evaluable response rates among all responses were more than 94%. Overall, a significant decrease in the scores of the health-related quality of life 12 months after carbon-ion radiotherapy returned to their baseline levels at 36 months. Additionally, no significant decrease was observed in the scores at any of the assessment time-points compared with their baseline scores in the group of carbon-ion radiotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy; however, the presence of morbidity and biochemical failure significantly worsened the scores, and the decreases in the scores did not improve even at 36 months after carbon-ion radiotherapy. An assessment based on a subjective scoring system shows a significant decrease in health-related quality of life at 12 months after carbon-ion radiation therapy, which tends to return to baseline levels at 36 months. The presence of morbidity and biochemical failure significantly worsen health-related quality of life scores. Further controlled studies focusing on health-related quality of life assessment in patients with prostate cancer are warranted.
    International Journal of Urology 10/2013; 21(4). DOI:10.1111/iju.12294 · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for clinically localised prostate cancer continues to impact on clinical decision-making. Two such options are radical prostatectomy (RP) and watchful waiting (WW). WW involves providing no initial treatment and monitoring the patient with the intention of providing palliative treatment if there is evidence of disease progression. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of RP versus WW for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Science Citation Index, DARE and LILACS were searched through 30 July 2010. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of RP versus WW for clinically localised prostate cancer. Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors. Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Both trials commenced prior to the widespread availability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; hence the results may not be applicable to men with PSA-detected disease.One trial (N = 142), conducted in the US, was judged to be of poor quality. All cause (overall) mortality was not significantly different between RP and WW groups after fifteen years of follow up (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.9 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.43).The second trial (N = 695), conducted in Scandinavia, was judged to be of good quality. After 12 years of follow up, the trial results were compatible with a beneficial effect of RP on the risks of overall mortality, prostate cancer mortality and distant metastases compared with WW but the precise magnitude of the effect is uncertain as indicated by the width of the confidence intervals for all estimates (risk difference (RD) -7.1% (95% CI -14.7 to 0.5); RD -5.4% (95% CI -11.1 to 0.2); RD -6.7% (95% CI -13.2 to -0.2), respectively). Compared to WW, RP increased the absolute risks of erectile dysfunction (RD 35% (95% CI 25 to 45)) and urinary leakage (RD 27% (95% CI 17 to 37)). These estimates must be interpreted cautiously as they are derived from data obtained from a self-administered questionnaire survey of a sample of the trial participants (N = 326), no baseline quality of life data were obtained and nerve-sparing surgery was not routinely performed on trial participants undergoing RP. The existing trials provide insufficient evidence to allow confident statements to be made about the relative beneficial and harmful effects of RP and WW for patients with localised prostate cancer. The results of ongoing trials should help to inform treatment decisions for men with screen-detected localised prostate cancer.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advanced screening programmes have led to an increased incidence of prostate cancer worldwide. Prostate Cancer is currently the most common site of male cancers worldwide; accounting for 21% of all male cancers in Ireland. This article presents an in-depth review of the available evidence (January 1997 to April 2007), which directly compares outcomes (in terms of urinary function, bowel function, sexual function, quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes and survival statistics) post radical prostatectomy versus a conservative watch-and-wait approach for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. The aim of this paper is to equip health-care professionals with the best available research evidence. Best research evidence is a component of evidence-based practice, which is very much ‘in vogue’ in health care today. The authors recommend that practitioners utilize this, the available evidence in combination with their clinical expertise and their patients’ opinions in order to assist these patients’ to make wise and informed treatment decisions. As this paper will demonstrate, the treatment chosen can have important implications in terms of patient outcomes. Therefore, making an informed decision early on can prevent any regret at a later stage. Overall this review of the literature revealed significant disparity in terms of which treatment option is more favourable. Patients overall are faced with a difficult dilemma when making this treatment decision – to live longer at the expense of potential erectile dysfunction and possible urinary incontinence or to live for a potentially shorter time without these adverse consequences.
    International Journal of Urological Nursing 10/2007; 1(3):99 - 111. DOI:10.1111/j.1749-771X.2007.00025.x · 0.19 Impact Factor