Daniel A Barocas1, JoAnn Alvarez2, Matthew J Resnick1, Tatsuki Koyama2, Karen E Hoffman3, Mark D Tyson1, Ralph Conwill4, Dan McCollum4, Matthew R Cooperberg5, Michael Goodman6, Sheldon Greenfield7, Ann S Hamilton8, Mia Hashibe9, Sherrie H Kaplan10, Lisa E Paddock11, Antoinette M Stroup11, Xiao-Cheng Wu12, David F Penson13. 1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 4. Prostate Cancer Patient Advocate, Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Center for Health Policy Research and Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine. 8. Department of Preventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 9. Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 10. Health Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine. 11. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers University, New Brunswick. 12. School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans. 13. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee13Tennessee Valley Veterans Administration Health System, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
Importance: Understanding the adverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared decision making. Objective: To compare functional outcomes and adverse effects associated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, population-based, cohort study involving 2550 men (≤80 years) diagnosed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antigen levels less than 50 ng/mL, and enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis. Exposures: Treatment with radical prostatectomy, EBRT, or active surveillance was ascertained within 1 year of diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported function on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) 36 months after enrollment. Higher domain scores (range, 0-100) indicate better function. Minimum clinically important difference was defined as 10 to 12 points for sexual function, 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative symptoms, 5 for bowel function, and 4 for hormonal function. Results: The cohort included 2550 men (mean age, 63.8 years; 74% white, 55% had intermediate- or high-risk disease), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%) active surveillance. Men in the EBRT group were older (mean age, 68.1 years vs 61.5 years, P < .001) and had worse baseline sexual function (mean score, 52.3 vs 65.2, P < .001) than men in the radical prostatectomy group. At 3 years, the adjusted mean sexual domain score for radical prostatectomy decreased more than for EBRT (mean difference, -11.9 points; 95% CI, -15.1 to -8.7). The decline in sexual domain scores between EBRT and active surveillance was not clinically significant (-4.3 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 0.7). Radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence than EBRT (-18.0 points; 95% CI, -20.5 to -15.4) and active surveillance (-12.7 points; 95% CI, -16.0 to -9.3) but was associated with better urinary irritative symptoms than active surveillance (5.2 points; 95% CI, 3.2 to 7.2). No clinically significant differences for bowel or hormone function were noted beyond 12 months. No differences in health-related quality of life or disease-specific survival (3 deaths) were noted (99.7%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with a greater decrease in sexual function and urinary incontinence than either EBRT or active surveillance after 3 years and was associated with fewer urinary irritative symptoms than active surveillance; however, no meaningful differences existed in either bowel or hormonal function beyond 12 months or in in other domains of health-related quality-of-life measures. These findings may facilitate counseling regarding the comparative harms of contemporary treatments for prostate cancer.
Importance: Understanding the adverse effects of contemporary approaches to localized prostate cancer treatment could inform shared decision making. Objective: To compare functional outcomes and adverse effects associated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and active surveillance. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective, population-based, cohort study involving 2550 men (≤80 years) diagnosed in 2011-2012 with clinical stage cT1-2, localized prostate cancer, with prostate-specific antigen levels less than 50 ng/mL, and enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis. Exposures: Treatment with radical prostatectomy, EBRT, or active surveillance was ascertained within 1 year of diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported function on the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) 36 months after enrollment. Higher domain scores (range, 0-100) indicate better function. Minimum clinically important difference was defined as 10 to 12 points for sexual function, 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative symptoms, 5 for bowel function, and 4 for hormonal function. Results: The cohort included 2550 men (mean age, 63.8 years; 74% white, 55% had intermediate- or high-risk disease), of whom 1523 (59.7%) underwent radical prostatectomy, 598 (23.5%) EBRT, and 429 (16.8%) active surveillance. Men in the EBRT group were older (mean age, 68.1 years vs 61.5 years, P < .001) and had worse baseline sexual function (mean score, 52.3 vs 65.2, P < .001) than men in the radical prostatectomy group. At 3 years, the adjusted mean sexual domain score for radical prostatectomy decreased more than for EBRT (mean difference, -11.9 points; 95% CI, -15.1 to -8.7). The decline in sexual domain scores between EBRT and active surveillance was not clinically significant (-4.3 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 0.7). Radical prostatectomy was associated with worse urinary incontinence than EBRT (-18.0 points; 95% CI, -20.5 to -15.4) and active surveillance (-12.7 points; 95% CI, -16.0 to -9.3) but was associated with better urinary irritative symptoms than active surveillance (5.2 points; 95% CI, 3.2 to 7.2). No clinically significant differences for bowel or hormone function were noted beyond 12 months. No differences in health-related quality of life or disease-specific survival (3 deaths) were noted (99.7%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy was associated with a greater decrease in sexual function and urinary incontinence than either EBRT or active surveillance after 3 years and was associated with fewer urinary irritative symptoms than active surveillance; however, no meaningful differences existed in either bowel or hormonal function beyond 12 months or in in other domains of health-related quality-of-life measures. These findings may facilitate counseling regarding the comparative harms of contemporary treatments for prostate cancer.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Thomas E Ahlering; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Vipul R Patel; Henk Van der Poel; Raymond C Rosen; Ashutosh K Tewari; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Eva Johansson; Gunnar Steineck; Lars Holmberg; Jan-Erik Johansson; Tommy Nyberg; Mirja Ruutu; Anna Bill-Axelson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Stanley Bruce Malkowicz; Marsha Wittink; Alan J Wein; Sumedha Chhatre Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Daniel A Barocas; Alicia K Morgans; Sharon E Phillips; Vivien W Chen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Karen E Hoffman; Sherri H Kaplan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Tatsuki Koyama; David F Penson Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: David-Dan Nguyen; Alejandro Berlin; Andrew G Matthew; Nathan Perlis; Dean S Elterman Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole E Benfante; James A Eastham; Peter J Scardino; Andrew J Vickers; John P Mulhall Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Davide Gori; Rajendra Dulal; Douglas W Blayney; James D Brooks; Maria P Fantini; Kathryn M McDonald; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-18
Authors: Michael A Diefenbach; Catherine Benedict; Suzanne M Miller; Annette L Stanton; Mary E Ropka; Kuang-Yi Wen; Linda G Fleisher; Nihal E Mohamed; Simon J Hall Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Catherine R Fedorenko; Karma Kreizenbeck; Aasthaa Bansal; Ian M Thompson; David F Penson Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-13
Authors: Aaron A Laviana; Zhiguo Zhao; Li-Ching Huang; Tatsuki Koyama; Ralph Conwill; Karen Hoffman; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew R Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096