Bryce B Reeve1, Mian Wang2, Kevin Weinfurt3, Kathryn E Flynn4, Deborah S Usinger5, Ronald C Chen6. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: Bryce.Reeve@Duke.edu. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are multiple treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer that provide similar curative efficacy but differ in their impact on sexual functioning. AIM: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) measures, including items from versions 1 and 2 of the short forms. METHODS: A population-based cohort of men across North Carolina completed surveys via phone interviews at baseline (prior to treatment) and at 3, 12, and 24 months after cancer treatment initiation. Surveys included the PROMIS SexFS domains of interest in sexual activity, erectile function, orgasm, and satisfaction and the Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices. Analyses included descriptive statistics, assessment of structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory, tests for differential item functioning, assessment of convergent validity using correlations, and evaluation of responsiveness of the PROMIS SexFS measures over time. We hypothesized that men undergoing surgery (prostatectomy) would report the poorest sexual function at the 3-month survey. RESULTS: Sample size varied by assessment point and ranged from 332‒939 men, consisting of 30% non-white men, and 30% of the sample had a high school degree or less. The items within the PROMIS orgasm domain did not form a unidimensional scale. PROMIS measures of interest in sexual activity, erectile function, and satisfaction were unidimensional and highly correlated with related Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices measures (eg, erectile function, r = 0.84‒0.95). Erectile function in the surgery group declined more at 3 months compared to the no-surgery group (2 points); this difference narrowed at 12 and 24 months after surgery, as the surgery group recovered over time. Results were similar for PROMIS Interest in Sexual Activity and PROMIS Satisfaction scales. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PROMIS SexFS measures may be used to identify effective interventions to treat sexual dysfunction and monitor sexual functioning in men with prostate cancer over time. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to men living in North Carolina who could self-report their health-related quality of life in English. However, this study was able to include more men from vulnerable populations by allowing them to self-report over the phone. CONCLUSION: This study provided strong support for use of the PROMIS SexFS (version 2) measures in men with localized prostate cancer to assess sexual interest, erectile function, and satisfaction over time. Reeve BB, Wang M, Weinfurt K, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures in a Longitudinal Population-Based Cohort of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. J Sex Med 2018;15:1792-1810.
BACKGROUND: There are multiple treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer that provide similar curative efficacy but differ in their impact on sexual functioning. AIM: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) measures, including items from versions 1 and 2 of the short forms. METHODS: A population-based cohort of men across North Carolina completed surveys via phone interviews at baseline (prior to treatment) and at 3, 12, and 24 months after cancer treatment initiation. Surveys included the PROMIS SexFS domains of interest in sexual activity, erectile function, orgasm, and satisfaction and the Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices. Analyses included descriptive statistics, assessment of structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory, tests for differential item functioning, assessment of convergent validity using correlations, and evaluation of responsiveness of the PROMIS SexFS measures over time. We hypothesized that men undergoing surgery (prostatectomy) would report the poorest sexual function at the 3-month survey. RESULTS: Sample size varied by assessment point and ranged from 332‒939 men, consisting of 30% non-white men, and 30% of the sample had a high school degree or less. The items within the PROMIS orgasm domain did not form a unidimensional scale. PROMIS measures of interest in sexual activity, erectile function, and satisfaction were unidimensional and highly correlated with related Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices measures (eg, erectile function, r = 0.84‒0.95). Erectile function in the surgery group declined more at 3 months compared to the no-surgery group (2 points); this difference narrowed at 12 and 24 months after surgery, as the surgery group recovered over time. Results were similar for PROMIS Interest in Sexual Activity and PROMIS Satisfaction scales. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PROMIS SexFS measures may be used to identify effective interventions to treat sexual dysfunction and monitor sexual functioning in men with prostate cancer over time. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to men living in North Carolina who could self-report their health-related quality of life in English. However, this study was able to include more men from vulnerable populations by allowing them to self-report over the phone. CONCLUSION: This study provided strong support for use of the PROMIS SexFS (version 2) measures in men with localized prostate cancer to assess sexual interest, erectile function, and satisfaction over time. Reeve BB, Wang M, Weinfurt K, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures in a Longitudinal Population-Based Cohort of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer. J Sex Med 2018;15:1792-1810.
Authors: Kevin P Weinfurt; Li Lin; Carrie B Dombeck; Joan E Broderick; Denise C Snyder; Megan S Williams; Maria R Fawzy; Kathryn E Flynn Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Li Lin; Jill M Cyranowski; Bryce B Reeve; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Diana D Jeffery; Ashley Wilder Smith; Laura S Porter; Carrie B Dombeck; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Francis J Keefe; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark S Litwin; John L Gore; Lorna Kwan; Judson M Brandeis; Steve P Lee; H Rodney Withers; Robert E Reiter Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Barbara Gandek; Arthur A Stone; Doerte U Junghaenel; John E Ware Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Bryce B Reeve; Li Lin; Jill M Cyranowski; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Lakshmanan Krishnamurti; Staci D Arnold; Ann Haight; Allistair Abraham; Gregory Mt Guilcher; Tami John; Nitya Bakshi; Shalini Shenoy; Karen Syrjala; Paul L Martin; Sonali Chaudhury; Gretchen Eames; Olusola Festus Olowoselu; Matthew Hsieh; Josu De La Fuente; Kimberly A Kasow; Elizabeth Stenger; Anne Mertens; Fuad El-Rassi; Peter Lane; Bronwen E Shaw; Lillian Meacham; David Archer Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-07-06