Long-term follow-up after active surveillance or curative treatment: quality-of-life outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer

• Published in: Quality of life research Vol. 26; no. 6; pp. 1635 - 1645
• Main Authors: Venderbos, Lionne D. F., Aluwini, Shafak, Roobol, Monique J., Bokhorst, Leonard P., Oomens, Eric H. G. M., Bangma, Chris H., Korfage, Ida J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer 01-06-2017; Springer International Publishing; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Cancer surgery; Cancer therapies; CLINICAL AND POLICY APPLICATIONS; Clinical decision making; Clinical outcomes; Cross-Sectional Studies; Epidemiological Monitoring; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mens health; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - psychology; Public Health; Quality of life; Quality of Life - psychology; Quality of Life Research; Questionnaires; Sociology; Surveillance; Surveys and Questionnaires; Urological surgery; Active surveillance; Patient reported outcome; Radical prostatectomy; Radiotherapy; Quality of life; Shared decision-making
• ISSN: 0962-9343; 1573-2649
• DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1507-7

Purpose To compare long-term (4-10 years) quality of life (QoL) of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated by different modalities and a reference group without PCa. Methods In this cross-sectional study, four groups were sent a one-time QoL-questionnaire; PCa patients (1) following the structured Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance protocol, (2) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in the context of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer—section Rotterdam, (3) who underwent radiotherapy (RT) at an academic hospital in The Netherlands, and (4) an agematched reference group of men without PCa. The QoL-questionnaire addressed prostate-specific health (EPIC), generic health (SF-12), and anxiety (STAI-6). Statistical significance (p≤0.05) and clinical relevance (≥0.5 SD) of differences between groups were assessed. Results The AS, RP, RT, and reference group response rates amounted to 74% (122/165), 66% (70/106), 66% (221/335), and 75% (205/273), respectively. At a mean of 6.6 years of follow-up, active surveillance (AS)-men reported better urinary function [M=93.0 (SD = 10.6) vs. 80.0 (SD = 19.1), p≤0.001], less urinary incontinence [M=90.0 (SD = 14.6) vs. 70.1 (SD = 28.8), p≤0.001], and better sexual function [M=40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 14.8 (17.7), p≤0.001, clinically relevant] than RP-men. Compared to RT, AS-men reported better sexual function [M=40.9 (SD = 24.6) vs. 25.8 (SD = 25.0), p=0.069]. The four groups reported similarly low anxiety levels; the number of highly anxious men (STAI≥44) ranged from 8 to 13%. For all QoL domains, men on AS and men without PCa reported very similar scores. Conclusions Prostate-specific function of AS-men was significantly better than that of RP-men. When comparing AS to RT, a borderline significant difference in sexual function was seen. Men who followed an AS strategy for a long-term period were not anxious and accepted it well, suggesting that AS may be a good treatment option for men with low-risk PCa.