Hilke M Rath1, Anneke Ullrich2, Ullrich Otto3, Christa Kerschgens4, Martin Raida5, Christa Hagen-Aukamp6, Uwe Koch2, Corinna Bergelt2. 1. Center of Psychosocial Medicine, Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, W26, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. h.rath@uke.de. 2. Center of Psychosocial Medicine, Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, W26, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Rehabilitation Clinics Hartenstein GmbH, Clinic Quellental, Bad Wildungen, Germany. 4. Vivantes Rehabilitation Clinic GmbH, Berlin, Germany. 5. HELIOS Rehabilitation Clinic Bergisch-Land, Wuppertal, Germany. 6. Niederrhein Rehabilitation Clinic, Korschenbroich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A radical prostatectomy might lead to an impaired quality of life. Aim of the study was to analyse the impact of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation on psychosocial and physical outcomes in patients after surgery. METHODS: Six hundred nineteen inpatients and 95 outpatients, treated for localized prostate cancer by prostatectomy, completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and two quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25) at the beginning and end of rehabilitation as well as 12 months after rehabilitation. Data were analysed by using t-tests, chi(2) - tests and analyses of variance with repeated measures. RESULTS: Compared to a population sample, patients reported a significantly worse quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and more anxiety (HADS) at the beginning of rehabilitation. Physical, role and social functioning increased significantly over time for in- and outpatients. Patients still reported lower emotional functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30), anxiety (HADS) and prostate cancer-specific physical symptoms (EORTC QLQ-PR25) 1 year after rehabilitation, although symptom levels decreased significantly over time. The setting did not have an independent significant effect in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: In- and outpatients reported an increased quality of life 1 year after rehabilitation with respect to their physical constitution and their reintegration into social life. Nonetheless, both groups still struggled with problems due to surgery. The results indicated that both settings seem to be supportive in the recovery process but that patients seem to require additional support with aftercare for treating surgery-related problems as well as emotional discomfort.
PURPOSE: A radical prostatectomy might lead to an impaired quality of life. Aim of the study was to analyse the impact of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation on psychosocial and physical outcomes in patients after surgery. METHODS: Six hundred nineteen inpatients and 95 outpatients, treated for localized prostate cancer by prostatectomy, completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and two quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PR25) at the beginning and end of rehabilitation as well as 12 months after rehabilitation. Data were analysed by using t-tests, chi(2) - tests and analyses of variance with repeated measures. RESULTS: Compared to a population sample, patients reported a significantly worse quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and more anxiety (HADS) at the beginning of rehabilitation. Physical, role and social functioning increased significantly over time for in- and outpatients. Patients still reported lower emotional functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30), anxiety (HADS) and prostate cancer-specific physical symptoms (EORTC QLQ-PR25) 1 year after rehabilitation, although symptom levels decreased significantly over time. The setting did not have an independent significant effect in the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: In- and outpatients reported an increased quality of life 1 year after rehabilitation with respect to their physical constitution and their reintegration into social life. Nonetheless, both groups still struggled with problems due to surgery. The results indicated that both settings seem to be supportive in the recovery process but that patients seem to require additional support with aftercare for treating surgery-related problems as well as emotional discomfort.
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael D Stubblefield; Gill Hubbard; Andrea Cheville; Uwe Koch; Kathryn H Schmitz; Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Heide Götze; Michael Friedrich; Elmar Brähler; Georg Romer; Anja Mehnert; Jochen Ernst Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David Riedl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Fanny L Loth; Gerhard Rumpold; Richard Greil; Alain Nickels; Thomas Licht; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Thomas Licht; Alain Nickels; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner; David Riedl Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 3.603