| Literature DB >> 35510095 |
Kazuhiro Fukuda1, Satoru Muto1,2, Toshiyuki China1, Hiroki Koyasu1, Yasuhiro Noma1, Takeshi Ashizawa1, Hisashi Hirano1, Kosuke Kitamura1, Fumitaka Shimizu1, Masayoshi Nagata1, Shuji Isotani1, Shigeo Horie1,2.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the longitudinal health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and HRQOL change between the nerve-sparing technique in Japanese men treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).Entities:
Keywords: Nerve-sparing surgery; Prostate cancer; Quality of life; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Year: 2021 PMID: 35510095 PMCID: PMC9042679 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2021.08.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prostate Int ISSN: 2287-8882
Baseline demographic and medical characteristics of study participants
| Patients ( | 573 |
| Median age (yr), (IQR) | 67 (62–71) |
| Median preoperative PSA (ng/mL), (IQR) | 7.3 (5.5–10.2) |
| Neoadjuvant ADT (%) | 177 (30.9) |
| Median prostate volume (mL), (IQR) | 27 (20.3–35.0) |
| Clinical T stage (%) | |
| cT1 | 176 (30.7) |
| cT2 | 358 (62.5) |
| cT3 | 3 (6.1) |
| Unknown | 4 (0.7) |
| Median number of positive cores/PBx cores, (IQR) | 3 (2–5)/14 (12–16) |
| Median rate of positive biopsy cores (%), (IQR) | 25.0 (12.5–41.7) |
| Gleason score (%) | |
| ≤6 | 210 (36.7) |
| 7 | 258 (45.0) |
| 8 | 95 (16.6) |
| ≥9 | 10 (1.7) |
| Nerve-sparing status (%) | |
| None | 255 (44.5) |
| Unilateral | 161 (28.1) |
| Bilateral | 154 (26.9) |
| Unknown | 3 (0.5) |
| Pathological T stage (%) | |
| ≤pT2 | 458 (79.9) |
| pT3 | 115 (20.1) |
| Positive surgical margin (%) | 140 (24.4) |
ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; IQR, interquartile range; PBx, prostate biopsy; PSA, prostate-specific antigen.
Fig. 1Longitudinal changes in urinary, bowel, sexual, hormonal, and satisfactory domain mean scores over time. Bars represent mean ± SE. (A) Urinary summary scores (US). (B) Urinary function scores (UF). (C) Urinary bother scores (UB). (D) Urinary irritative–obstructive scores (UIR). (E) Urinary incontinence scores (UI). (F) Bowel summary scores (BS). (G) Bowel function scores (BF). (H) Bowel bother scores (BB). (I) Sexual summary scores (SS). (J) Sexual function scores (SF). (K) Sexual bother scores (SB). (L) Hormonal summary scores (HS). (M) Hormonal function scores (HF). (N) Hormonal bother scores (HB). (O) Satisfactory scores (SAT).
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier analysis of the proportion of subjects returning to recovery urinary, bowel, sexual, hormonal, and satisfactory scorea) over time. (A) Urinary summary scores (US). (B) Urinary function scores (UF). (C) Urinary bother scores (UB). (D) Urinary irritative–obstructive scores (UIR). (E) Urinary incontinence scores (UI). (F) Bowel summary scores (BS). (G) Bowel function scores (BF). (H) Bowel bother scores (BB). (I) Sexual summary scores (SS). (J) Sexual function scores (SF). (K) Sexual bother scores (SB). (L) Hormonal summary scores (HS). (M) Hormonal function scores (HF). (N) Hormonal bother scores (HB). (O) Satisfactory scores (SAT).
a)Recovery group defined as change score that was greater than (preoperative value − ½ SD preoperative value) for respective subscales.
Fig. 3The Δ score (prescore – nadir score after RARP) for each nerve-sparing technique groups in sexual and urinary scores. Group 0, non-nerve-sparing; group 1, unilateral ITR-NS; group 2, unilateral ITE-NS; group 3, bilateral ITR-NS; 4, bilateral ITE-NS. (A) Sexual summary scores (SS; mean ± SD). Group 0, 21.9 ± 17.5; group 1, 26.8 ± 19.9; group 2, 19.7 ± 16.2; group 3, 15.8 ± 19.4; group 4, 20.9 ± 19.9. ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between groups (P = 0.006). (B) Sexual function scores (SF; mean ± SD). Group 0, 23.5 ± 19.0; group 1, 26.9 ± 21.4; group 2, 23.4 ± 19.4; group 3, 20.4 ± 18.4; group 4, 22.2 ± 20.7. There were no significant differences between groups (P = 0.345). (C) Sexual bother scores (SB; mean ± SD). Group 0, 22.4 ± 29.9; group 1, 29.7 ± 31.4; group 2, 16.8 ± 31.2; group 3, 4.1 ± 31.4; group 4, 21.7 ± 33.2. ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). (D) Urinary summary scores (US; mean ± SD). Group 0, 27.4 ± 18.6; group 1, 29.9 ± 18.9; group 2, 29.1 ± 19.7; group 3, 13.9 ± 13.3; group 4, 23.0 ± 18.9. There are significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). (E) Urinary function scores (UF; mean ± SD). Group 0, 37.8 ± 23.4; group 1, 39.0 ± 23.2; group 2, 37.9 ± 24.5; group 3, 19.9 ± 16.4; group 4, 37.0 ± 22.6. There are significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). (F) Urinary bother scores (UB; mean ± SD). Group 0, 21.4 ± 18.4; group 1, 22.5 ± 19.3; group 2, 22.8 ± 19.5; group 3, 8.7 ± 14.3, group 4, 14.2 ± 17.9. There are significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). (G) Urinary irritative–obstructive scores (UIR; mean ± SD). Group 0, 14.2 ± 16.4; group 1, 15.8 ± 18.7; group 2, 14.8 ± 18.4; group 3, 3.25 ± 9.8; group 4, 9.8 ± 17.3. There are significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). (H) Urinary incontinence scores (UI; mean ± SD). Group 0, 52.8 ± 32.2; group 1, 55.2 ± 30.9; group 2, 52.1 ± 31.8; group 3, 30.7 ± 24.2; group 4, 47.7 ± 30.6. There are significant differences between groups (P < 0.001).