Literature DB >> 18816628

Defining potency: a comparison of the International Index of Erectile Function short version and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite.

Florian R Schroeck1, Craig F Donatucci, Emily C Smathers, Leon Sun, David M Albala, Thomas J Polascik, Judd W Moul, Tracey L Krupski.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both the 5-item short version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) have been used to assess erectile function. In this study, the authors compared various definitions of potency according to the IIEF-5 and the EPIC.
METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer who had completed the IIEF-5 and the EPIC within 7 days of each other were included. The Spearman correlation coefficient (rho) was calculated to assess the relation between IIEF-5 and EPIC sexual domain scores. Concordance of potency rates by IIEF-5 and EPIC was assessed in cross-tabulations. By calculating the area under the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), the authors ascertained the discriminative ability of the IIEF-5 score to identify potent men as defined by the EPIC.
RESULTS: Analyzing 102 questionnaire pairs, IIEF-5 and EPIC domain scores were found to be highly correlated (rho = 0.776). EPIC sexual domain scores > or =60 had high concordance with IIEF-5 scores > or =17 (98%) and with nearly all single-item definitions of potency (> or =71%). However, an EPIC sexual domain score > or =80 was a very strict definition of potency, and only 54% of patients with IIEF-5 scores > or =22 met this threshold. On the basis of ROC analysis (AUC = 0.90), an IIEF-5 score > or =20 was identified as the ideal cutoff for defining potency and corresponded with an EPIC sexual domain score > or =60.
CONCLUSIONS: IIEF-5 and EPIC scores were highly correlated, but potency rates varied widely, depending on the definition of potency. The current results help with the interpretation of sexual function outcomes data in patients with prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18816628     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23887

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  10 in total

1.  Prediction of erectile function following treatment for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Meredith M Regan; Matthew R Cooperberg; John T Wei; Jeff M Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Larry Hembroff; Natalia Sadetsky; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Eric Klein; Adam S Kibel; Daniel A Hamstra; Louis L Pisters; Deborah A Kuban; Irving D Kaplan; David P Wood; Jay Ciezki; Rodney L Dunn; Peter R Carroll; Martin G Sanda
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Translation and validation of tools for assessing health-related quality of life and male sexual function in Hong Kong Chinese patients during transitional cancer survivorship.

Authors:  Ka Ming Chow; Carmen W H Chan; Winnie K W So; Doris Y P Leung
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Interpreting Patient Reported Urinary and Sexual Function Outcomes across Multiple Validated Instruments.

Authors:  Emily A Vertosick; Andrew J Vickers; Janet E Cowan; Jeanette M Broering; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Measuring and predicting prostate cancer related quality of life changes using EPIC for clinical practice.

Authors:  Jonathan J Chipman; Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; John T Wei; Mark S Litwin; Catrina M Crociani; Meredith M Regan; Peter Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Erectile function, incontinence, and other quality of life outcomes following proton therapy for prostate cancer in men 60 years old and younger.

Authors:  Bradford S Hoppe; Romaine C Nichols; Randal H Henderson; Christopher G Morris; Christopher R Williams; Joseph Costa; Robert B Marcus; William M Mendenhall; Zuofeng Li; Nancy P Mendenhall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life.

Authors:  Athene Lane; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Tim J Peters; Jane Blazeby; Kerry N L Avery; Daniel Dedman; Liz Down; Malcolm D Mason; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Association Among Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Erectile Function, and Sexual Satisfaction: Results from the Brazil LUTS Study.

Authors:  Cristiano Mendes Gomes; Marcio Augusto Averbeck; Mitti Koyama; Roberto Soler
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 2.491

Review 8.  Sexual quality of life for localized prostate cancer: a cross-cultural study between Japanese and American men.

Authors:  Shunichi Namiki; Yoichi Arai
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2011-02-16

9.  Exploring the feasibility and acceptability of couple-based psychosexual support following prostate cancer surgery: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jane M Robertson; Gerard J Molloy; Prasad R Bollina; Daniel M Kelly; S Alan McNeill; Liz Forbat
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Potency preservation following stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Leonard N Chen; Aditi Bhagat; Henry C Wright; Sunghae Uhm; Joy S Kim; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Gerald P Batipps; John Pahira; Kevin G McGeagh; Brian T Collins; Keith Kowalczyk; Gaurav Bandi; Deepak Kumar; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.481

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.