Lin Yang1, Adam S Kibel2, Graham A Colditz3, Ratna Pakpahan3, Kellie R Imm3, Sonya Izadi3, Robert L Grubb4, Kathleen Y Wolin5, Siobhan Sutcliffe3. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: lin.yang@muv.ac.at. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Division of Urological Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. ScaleDown, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated agreement between patient reported urinary function and bother, and sexual function and bother in patients treated with radical prostatectomy to help inform possible nonfunctional, modifiable mechanisms for patient bother. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from 2011 to 2014 at Washington University, and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Urinary and sexual outcomes were assessed by EPIC-50 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50) before, 5 weeks and 12 months after radical prostatectomy. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and agreement/disagreement categories were used to describe the relation between function and bother. RESULTS: Despite moderate to good agreement between function and bother (urinary r = 0.51-0.69 and sexual r = 0.65-0.80) discordant groups were observed. In the urinary domain these groups were men disproportionately bothered by function at baseline (16.9%) and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (6.1%) and men less bothered by function 5 weeks (26.8%) and 12 months (9.9%) after radical prostatectomy. Discordant groups in the sexual domain were men less bothered by function at baseline (20.8%), and 5 weeks (21.1%) and 12 months (15.7%) after radical prostatectomy. Splitting the urinary bother scale into 2 subscales, including one for incontinence related bother to complement the urinary function scale which measures only incontinence, and one for voiding dysfunction related bother yielded considerably better agreement (urinary function and incontinence related bother r = 0.78-0.83). Factors contributing to the group less bothered by sexual function were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: When using EPIC-50, investigators should consider splitting the urinary bother scale by the relation to incontinence to prevent distortions of function-bother and comparisons before vs after radical prostatectomy by coexisting voiding dysfunction.
PURPOSE: We evaluated agreement between patient reported urinary function and bother, and sexual function and bother in patients treated with radical prostatectomy to help inform possible nonfunctional, modifiable mechanisms for patient bother. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients were recruited from 2011 to 2014 at Washington University, and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Urinary and sexual outcomes were assessed by EPIC-50 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50) before, 5 weeks and 12 months after radical prostatectomy. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and agreement/disagreement categories were used to describe the relation between function and bother. RESULTS: Despite moderate to good agreement between function and bother (urinary r = 0.51-0.69 and sexual r = 0.65-0.80) discordant groups were observed. In the urinary domain these groups were men disproportionately bothered by function at baseline (16.9%) and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (6.1%) and men less bothered by function 5 weeks (26.8%) and 12 months (9.9%) after radical prostatectomy. Discordant groups in the sexual domain were men less bothered by function at baseline (20.8%), and 5 weeks (21.1%) and 12 months (15.7%) after radical prostatectomy. Splitting the urinary bother scale into 2 subscales, including one for incontinence related bother to complement the urinary function scale which measures only incontinence, and one for voiding dysfunction related bother yielded considerably better agreement (urinary function and incontinence related bother r = 0.78-0.83). Factors contributing to the group less bothered by sexual function were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: When using EPIC-50, investigators should consider splitting the urinary bother scale by the relation to incontinence to prevent distortions of function-bother and comparisons before vs after radical prostatectomy by coexisting voiding dysfunction.
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
Authors: Peter Chang; Meredith M Regan; Montserrat Ferrer; Ferran Guedea; Dattatraya Patil; John T Wei; Larry A Hembroff; Jeff M Michalski; Chris S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Daniel A Hamstra; Irving D Kaplan; Jay P Ciezki; Eric A Klein; Adam S Kibel; Howard M Sandler; Rodney L Dunn; Catrina M Crociani; Martin G Sanda Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Gregory Murphy; Peter Haddock; Hoyt Doak; Max Jackson; Ryan Dorin; Anoop Meraney; Stuart Kesler; Ilene Staff; Joseph R Wagner Journal: Urology Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Peter Chang; Richard J Vetter; Himansu Lukka; William A Stokes; Martin G Sanda; Deborah Watkins-Bruner; Bryce B Reeve; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 13.506