BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown significant variability in the quality of prostate cancer care in the US with questionable associations between quality measures and patient reported outcomes. We evaluated the impact of compliance with nationally recognized radiation therapy (RT) quality measures on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) cohort. METHODS: CEASAR is a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer from which we identified 649 who received primary RT and completed HRQOL surveys for inclusion. Eight quality measures were identified based on national guidelines. We analyzed the impact of compliance with these measures on HRQOL assessed by the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at pre-specified intervals up to 5 years after treatment. Multivariable analysis was performed controlling for demographic and clinicopathologic features. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 566 (87%) patients received external beam radiation therapy and 83 (13%) received brachytherapy. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 64-73), 33% had low-, 43% intermediate-, and 23% high-risk disease. 28% received care non-compliant with at least one measure. In multivariable analyses, while some statistically significant associations were identified, there were no clinically significant associations between compliance with evaluated RT quality measures and patient reported urinary irritative, urinary incontinence, bowel, sexual or hormonal function. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with RT quality measures was not meaningfully associated with patient-reported outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. Further work is needed to identify patient-centered quality measures of prostate cancer care.

Purpose

The EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-Short Form) is a validated questionnaire for measuring health related quality of life. However, the relationship between domain scores and functional outcomes remains unclear, leading to potential confusion about expectations after treatment. For instance, does a sexual function domain score of 80 mean that a patient can achieve erection sufficient for intercourse? Consequently we sought to determine the relationship between the domain score and the response to obtaining the best possible outcome for each question.

Materials and methods

Using data from the CEASAR (Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation) study, a multicenter, prospective study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, we analyzed 11,464 EPIC-26 questionnaires from a total of 2,563 men at baseline through 60 months of followup who were treated with robotic prostatectomy, radiotherapy or active surveillance. We dichotomized every item into its best possible outcome and assessed the percent of men at each domain score who achieved the best result.

Results

For every EPIC-26 item the frequency of the best possible outcome was reported by domain score category. For example, a score of 80 to 100 on sexual function corresponded to 97% of men reporting erections sufficient for intercourse while at a score of 40 to 60 only 28% reported adequate erections. Also, at a score of 80 to 100 on the urinary incontinence domain 93% of men reported rarely or never leaking vs 6% at a score of 61 to 80.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate a novel way to interpret EPIC-26 domain scores, demonstrating large variations in the percent of respondents reporting the best possible outcomes over narrow domain score differences. This information may be valuable when counseling men on treatment options.

Background

The role of pelvic irradiation in men receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer is unclear, in part due to a lack of data on patient-reported outcomes. We sought to compare functional outcomes for men receiving prostate and pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy, longitudinally over 5 years.

Materials and methods

We performed a population-based, prospective cohort study of men with clinically-localized prostate cancer undergoing EBRT. We examined the effect of prostate and pelvic (n = 102) versus prostate-only (n = 485) radiotherapy on patient-reported disease-specific (using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite[EPIC]-26) and general health-related (using the SF-36) function, over 5 years. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, clinicopathologic characteristics, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

Results

587 men (median [quartiles] age 69 [64-73] years) met inclusion criteria and completed ≥1 post-treatment survey. More men treated with prostate and pelvic radiotherapy had high-risk disease (58% vs. 18%, P < 0.01) and received ADT (75% vs. 41%, P < 0.01). These men reported worse sexual (6 months-5 years), hormonal (at 6 months), and physical (6 months-5 years) function. Accounting for baseline function, patient and tumor characteristics, and use of ADT, pelvic irradiation was not associated with statistically or clinically significant differences in bowel function, urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms or sexual function through 5-years (all P > 0.05). Marginally clinically important differences were noted in hormonal function at 3-years (adjusted mean difference 4.7, 95% confidence interval [1.2-8.3]; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) 4 to 6) and 5-years (4.2, [0.4-8.0]) following treatment. After adjustment, there was a transient statistically significant, but not clinically important, difference in emotional well-being at 6 months (3.0, [0.19-5.8]; MCID 6) that resolved by 1 year and no differences in physical functioning or energy and fatigue.

Conclusion

This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT, showed no clinically important differences in disease-specific or general health-related quality of life with the addition of pelvic irradiation to prostate radiotherapy, supporting the use of pelvic radiotherapy when it may be of clinical benefit, such as men with increased risk of nodal involvement.

Purpose

To compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.

Methods and materials

The prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.

Results

Five-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.

Conclusions

Men treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.

Purpose

Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy has largely replaced open radical prostatectomy for the surgical management of prostate cancer despite conflicting evidence of superiority with respect to disease control or functional sequelae. Using population cohort data, in this study we examined sexual and urinary function in men undergoing open radical prostatectomy vs those undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Materials and methods

Subjects surgically treated for prostate cancer were selected from 2 large population based prospective cohort studies, the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (enrolled 1994 to 1995) and the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (enrolled 2011 to 2012). Subjects completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month standardized patient reported outcome measures. Main outcomes were between-group differences in functional outcome scores at 6 and 12 months using linear regression, and adjusting for baseline function, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate outcomes between patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy within and across CEASAR and PCOS.

Results

The combined cohort consisted of 2,438 men, 1,505 of whom underwent open radical prostatectomy and 933 of whom underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Men treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy reported better urinary function at 6 months (mean difference 3.77 points, 95% CI 1.09-6.44) but not at 12 months (1.19, -1.32-3.71). Subjects treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy also reported superior sexual function at 6 months (8.31, 6.02-10.56) and at 12 months (7.64, 5.25-10.03). Sensitivity analyses largely supported the sexual function findings with inconsistent support for urinary function results.

Conclusions

This population based study reveals that men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy likely experience less decline in early urinary continence and sexual function than those undergoing open radical prostatectomy. The clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain and longer followup will be required to establish whether these benefits are durable.

Introduction and objective

The timing of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is controversial, and its effect on sexual, urinary, and bowel function is unknown. This study seeks to compare patient-reported functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and postprostatectomy radiation as well as elucidate the timing of radiation to allow optimal recovery of function.

Methods

The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study is a prospective, population-based, observational study of men with localized prostate cancer. Patient-reported sexual, urinary, and bowel functional outcomes were measured using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite at baseline and at 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after enrollment. Functional outcomes were compared among men undergoing RP alone, post-RP adjuvant radiation (RP + aRT), and post-RP salvage radiation (RP + sRT) using multivariable models controlling for baseline clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics.

Results

Among 1,482 CEASAR participants initially treated with RP for clinically localized prostate cancer, 11.5% (N = 170) received adjuvant (aRT, N = 57) or salvage (sRT, N = 113) radiation. Men who received post-RP RT had worse scores in all domains (sexual function [-9.0, 95% confidence interval {-14.5, -3.6}, P < 0.001], incontinence [-8.8, {-14.0, -3.6}, P < 0.001], irritative voiding [-5.9, {-9.0, -2.8}, P < 0.001], bowel irritative [-3.5, {-5.8, -1.2}, P = 0.002], and hormonal function [-4.5, {-7.2, -1.7}, P = 0.001]) compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. Compared to men treated with RP alone in an adjusted linear model, sRT was associated with significantly worse scores in all functional domains. aRT was associated with significantly worse incontinence, urinary irritation, and hormonal function domain scores compared to RP alone at 5 years of follow-up. On multivariable modeling, RT administered approximately 24 months after RP was associated with the smallest decline in sexual domain score, with an adjusted mean decrease of 8.85 points (95% confidence interval [-19.8, 2.1]) from post-RP, pre-RT baseline.

Conclusions

In men with localized prostate cancer, post-RP RT was associated with significantly worse sexual, urinary, and bowel function domain scores at 5 years compared to RP alone. Radiation delayed for approximately 24 months after RP may be optimal for preserving erectile function compared to radiation administered closer to the time of RP.

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.

Purpose

Quality measures represent the standards of appropriate treatment agreed upon by experts in the field and often supported by data. The extent to which providers in the community adhere to quality measures in radiation therapy (RT) is unknown.

Methods and materials

The Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with clinically localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012. Patients completed surveys and medical records were reviewed. Patients were risk-stratified according to D'Amico classification criteria. Patterns of care and compliance with 8 quality measures as endorsed by national consortia as of 2011 were assessed.

Results

Overall, 926 men underwent definitive RT (69% external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]), 17% brachytherapy (BT), and 14% combined EBRT and BT with considerable variation in radiation techniques across risk groups. Most men who received EBRT had dose-escalated EBRT (>75 Gy; 93%) delivered with conventional fractionation (<2 Gy; 95%), intensity modulated RT (76%), and image guided RT (85%). Most men treated with BT received I125 (77%). Overall, 73% of the men received EBRT that was compliant with the quality measures (dose-escalation, image-guidance, appropriate use of androgen deprivation therapy, and appropriate treatment target) but only 60% of men received BT that was compliant with quality measures (postimplant dosimetry and appropriate dose). African-American men (64%) and other minorities (62%) were less likely than white men (77%) to receive EBRT that was compliant with quality measures.

Conclusions

Most men who received RT for localized prostate cancer were treated with an appropriately high dose and received image guidance and intensity modulated RT. However, compliance with some nationally recognized quality measures was relatively low and varied by race. There are significant opportunities to improve the delivery of RT and especially for men of a minority race.

Purpose

We aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach.

Results

A total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054).

Conclusions

This prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Background

Shared decision making to guide treatment of localized prostate cancer requires delivery of the anticipated quality of life (QOL) outcomes of contemporary treatment options (including radical prostatectomy [RP], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]). Predicting these QOL outcomes based on personalized features is necessary.

Objective

To create an easy-to-use tool to predict personalized sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormonal function outcomes after RP, RT, and AS.

Design, setting, and participants

A prospective, population-based cohort study was conducted utilizing US cancer registries of 2563 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012.

Intervention

Patient-reported urinary, sexual, and bowel function up to 5 yr after treatment.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function through 5 yr after treatment were collected using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. Comprehensive models to predict domain scores were fit, which included age, race, D'Amico classification, body mass index, EPIC-26 baseline function, treatment, and standardized scores measuring comorbidity, general QOL, and psychosocial health. We reduced these models by removing the instrument scores and replacing D'Amico classification with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score. For the final model, we performed bootstrap internal validation to assess model calibration from which an easy-to-use web-based tool was developed.

Results and limitations

The prediction models achieved bias-corrected R-squared values of 0.386, 0.232, 0.183, 0.214, and 0.309 for sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative, bowel, and hormonal domains, respectively. Differences in R-squared values between the comprehensive and parsimonious models were small in magnitude. Calibration was excellent. The web-based tool is available at https://statez.shinyapps.io/PCDSPred/.

Conclusions

Functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer can be predicted at the time of diagnosis based on age, race, PSA, biopsy grade, baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. Providers and patients can use this prediction tool to inform shared decision making.

Patient summary

In this report, we studied patient-reported sexual, urinary, hormonal, and bowel function through 5 yr after treatment with radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. We developed a web-based predictive tool that can be used to predict one's outcomes after treatment based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy grade, pretreatment baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. We hope both patients and providers can use this tool to better understand expected outcomes after treatment, further enhancing shared decision making between providers and patients.