Limits...
Prospective longitudinal comparative study of health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in patients treated with hormone therapy, radical retropubic prostatectomy, and high or low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

Miwa S, Mizokami A, Konaka H, Ueno S, Kitagawa Y, Koh E, Namiki M - Prostate Int (2013)

Bottom Line: The comparison of baseline and 12-month results showed that general and cancer-specific QoL had changed little in all groups.The results of each of the four treatments differed in assessments of QoL.However, regardless of the quality of life evaluations, most patients surveyed were satisfied with their treatments and would choose the same treatment again.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of four different prostate cancer treatments on quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction.

Methods: Ninety-six prostate cancer patients were treated with hormone therapy, radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, or low dose rate brachytherapy. We assessed general, cancer-specific, and prostate disease-specific QoL. More than one year since commencement of treatment, the patients were asked the following questions: 1) How do you feel about your treatment? 2) Would you undergo the same treatment again?

Results: The comparison of baseline and 12-month results showed that general and cancer-specific QoL had changed little in all groups. At baseline, the general and cancer-specific QoL tended to be lower in the hormone therapy patients. In the radical the retropubic prostatectomy patients, all scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form were worse than the baseline scores at three months. Scores for the International Index of Erectile Function-5 had also worsened, with no recovery. In the low-dose rate brachytherapy patients, the prostate disease-specific QoL at baseline tended to improve. However, the satisfaction levels for each treatment were reasonably good, and most patients would choose the same treatment again.

Conclusions: The results of each of the four treatments differed in assessments of QoL. In the radical retropubic prostatectomy patients, the decrease in the International Index of Erectile Function-5 scores was especially remarkable and did not show recovery. In contrast, both brachy therapy groups had attained superior sexual function. However, regardless of the quality of life evaluations, most patients surveyed were satisfied with their treatments and would choose the same treatment again.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Effects of four treatments on each domain score of SF-36 in patients with prostate cancer. PF, physical functioning; RP, role limitations because of physical health problems; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role limitations because of emotional problems; MH, mental health; HT, hormone therapy; RRP, radical retropubic prostatectomy; HDR-BT, high dose rate brachytherapy; LDR-BT, low dose rate brachytherapy; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814119&req=5

f1-pi-1-3-117-5: Effects of four treatments on each domain score of SF-36 in patients with prostate cancer. PF, physical functioning; RP, role limitations because of physical health problems; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role limitations because of emotional problems; MH, mental health; HT, hormone therapy; RRP, radical retropubic prostatectomy; HDR-BT, high dose rate brachytherapy; LDR-BT, low dose rate brachytherapy; ANOVA, analysis of variance.

Mentions: Figs. 1 and 2 show the data of SF-36, FACT-G, FACT-P, IPSS, and IIEF-5. General and cancer-specific HRQoL measured by SF-36 and FACT-G showed little change when the baseline and the 12-month results in each group were compared. In the HT group, SF-36 and FACT-G tended to show lower scores than in the other treatment groups before treatment, particularly RP and VT (RP, HT vs. LDR-BT, P <0.05; VT, HT vs. RRP, P<0.05). In the RRP group, all SF-36 QoL scores at three months were worse than the baseline scores were. However, these scores showed recovery in the responses to the questionnaire at 12 months. In particular, PF, RP, SF, and RE showed significant improvement between 3 months and 12 months. In the RRP group, the IIEF-5 scores were worse at six months, and recovery was not indicated in responses to the questionnaire at 12 months (pre vs. 3 months, pre vs. 6 months, pre vs. 12 months, P<0.0001). In the HDR-BT group and LDR-BT group, IIEF-5 scores did not show a significant decrease. In the LDR-BT group, the disease-specific HRQoL, FACT-P, IPSS, and IIEF-5 scores were better than the baseline scores in the other groups were (FACT-P, LDR-BT vs. HT, P=0.019; LDR-BT vs. HDR-BT, P=0.02; IIEF-5, LDR-BT vs. HT, P=0.012).


Prospective longitudinal comparative study of health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in patients treated with hormone therapy, radical retropubic prostatectomy, and high or low dose rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer.

Miwa S, Mizokami A, Konaka H, Ueno S, Kitagawa Y, Koh E, Namiki M - Prostate Int (2013)

Effects of four treatments on each domain score of SF-36 in patients with prostate cancer. PF, physical functioning; RP, role limitations because of physical health problems; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role limitations because of emotional problems; MH, mental health; HT, hormone therapy; RRP, radical retropubic prostatectomy; HDR-BT, high dose rate brachytherapy; LDR-BT, low dose rate brachytherapy; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3814119&req=5

f1-pi-1-3-117-5: Effects of four treatments on each domain score of SF-36 in patients with prostate cancer. PF, physical functioning; RP, role limitations because of physical health problems; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; VT, vitality; SF, social functioning; RE, role limitations because of emotional problems; MH, mental health; HT, hormone therapy; RRP, radical retropubic prostatectomy; HDR-BT, high dose rate brachytherapy; LDR-BT, low dose rate brachytherapy; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
Mentions: Figs. 1 and 2 show the data of SF-36, FACT-G, FACT-P, IPSS, and IIEF-5. General and cancer-specific HRQoL measured by SF-36 and FACT-G showed little change when the baseline and the 12-month results in each group were compared. In the HT group, SF-36 and FACT-G tended to show lower scores than in the other treatment groups before treatment, particularly RP and VT (RP, HT vs. LDR-BT, P <0.05; VT, HT vs. RRP, P<0.05). In the RRP group, all SF-36 QoL scores at three months were worse than the baseline scores were. However, these scores showed recovery in the responses to the questionnaire at 12 months. In particular, PF, RP, SF, and RE showed significant improvement between 3 months and 12 months. In the RRP group, the IIEF-5 scores were worse at six months, and recovery was not indicated in responses to the questionnaire at 12 months (pre vs. 3 months, pre vs. 6 months, pre vs. 12 months, P<0.0001). In the HDR-BT group and LDR-BT group, IIEF-5 scores did not show a significant decrease. In the LDR-BT group, the disease-specific HRQoL, FACT-P, IPSS, and IIEF-5 scores were better than the baseline scores in the other groups were (FACT-P, LDR-BT vs. HT, P=0.019; LDR-BT vs. HDR-BT, P=0.02; IIEF-5, LDR-BT vs. HT, P=0.012).

Bottom Line: The comparison of baseline and 12-month results showed that general and cancer-specific QoL had changed little in all groups.The results of each of the four treatments differed in assessments of QoL.However, regardless of the quality of life evaluations, most patients surveyed were satisfied with their treatments and would choose the same treatment again.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of four different prostate cancer treatments on quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction.

Methods: Ninety-six prostate cancer patients were treated with hormone therapy, radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, or low dose rate brachytherapy. We assessed general, cancer-specific, and prostate disease-specific QoL. More than one year since commencement of treatment, the patients were asked the following questions: 1) How do you feel about your treatment? 2) Would you undergo the same treatment again?

Results: The comparison of baseline and 12-month results showed that general and cancer-specific QoL had changed little in all groups. At baseline, the general and cancer-specific QoL tended to be lower in the hormone therapy patients. In the radical the retropubic prostatectomy patients, all scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form were worse than the baseline scores at three months. Scores for the International Index of Erectile Function-5 had also worsened, with no recovery. In the low-dose rate brachytherapy patients, the prostate disease-specific QoL at baseline tended to improve. However, the satisfaction levels for each treatment were reasonably good, and most patients would choose the same treatment again.

Conclusions: The results of each of the four treatments differed in assessments of QoL. In the radical retropubic prostatectomy patients, the decrease in the International Index of Erectile Function-5 scores was especially remarkable and did not show recovery. In contrast, both brachy therapy groups had attained superior sexual function. However, regardless of the quality of life evaluations, most patients surveyed were satisfied with their treatments and would choose the same treatment again.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus